CrimsonWeltall

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 5, 2010 -> 11:59 PM) He meant that about as literally as Sean Hannity meant his "Tim McVeigh wannabes" comment a few days ago. That is to say, not at all. You see where he stopped because he thought the admiral or whoever was testifying was going to laugh and he basically ignored it. I'm surprised so many people think is really that mind-numblingly stupid and meant that, he actually had to issue a statement after that where he said something like he is worried that the island is going to be overpopulated. If he meant it in a jokey way, he has just about the worst delivery ever.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 31, 2010 -> 11:50 PM) My favorite episode is the one with the Southern hick Vampires. It has Luke Wilson in it. It's called "Bad Blood". Possibly the funniest X-Files episode, as Mulder and Scully tell two different tales of the events. "Arcadia" has a lot of funny moments too, but the actual plot isn't as good.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 06:13 PM) It might sound crazy but it's not confusing. You have 2 divisions, East and West, like before. The #1 seed in each division has a best-of-7 series where the winner goes to the ALCS. Aren't you likely knocking out two of the four best teams in baseball in the first round then?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) NY Times conservative columnist David Brooks spent a whole column today telling us why Sandra Bullock should have been staying at home popping out babies to keep her marriage solid rather than winning an Academy Award. C'mon, Balta. Sandra Bullock was a trivial lead-in to a piece about how the quality of one's marriage is a greater factor in happiness than professional success. At no point does he imply people (much less women, or Bullock specifically) should stay home and make babies rather than work.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 09:04 PM) George Bush was in Haiti with Bill Clinton. After shaking hands with Haitians, he felt the need to wipe his hand on Bill Clinton's shirt. I don't quite know what this means, and I'm not sure if I should shake my head or laugh out loud. I really don't. Apparently, he's a bit of a germaphobe.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 04:07 PM) Thursday used to be my favorite comedy night, but between Thirty Rock and the fall of the Office, I hardly watch anymore. Can't help but agree with the sentiments here. The Office seasons 1-4 are among my favorite comedy tv ever, but since then, it's become clear the writers have little to nothing left. There was at least some semblance of realism earlier in the run (Perhaps Creed was an exception, but he was a minor character). Dwight and Michael have become completely ridiculous and almost unwatchable. Dwight remodeled Pam and Jim's kitchen because he sensed mold? Really? Michael turns into "Date Mike" to be obnoxious? He didn't do that on other dates.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 03:08 AM) The more I watch that show, the more I hate Steve Carell's character. The more I see anything (including just commercials) with Steve Carell, the more I hate Steve Carell. As soon as he went outside and turned into "Date Mike", I knew the episode was about to go way downhill.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 03:08 AM) Maybe if Jacob is dead and someone takes him off of the island? There seem to be multiple ways of containing Smokey. - Whatever Jacob is doing - Whatever Dogen was doing at the Temple until he died - The sonic (?) fences used by the Dharma folks and Widmore

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 02:26 AM) The candidates maybe? Maybe Flocke can't leave, until they're either all dead or all on his side. It would be pretty dumb of Jacob to keep bringing them to the island then...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 02:08 AM) I'm distinguishing the two. How is a guy who allegedly funds a terrorist group and is held out of the country (by its government) the same as a blow hard who gets denied the opportunity to speak because she makes offensive comments? If you have a more comparable example, give it. She wasn't denied an opportunity to speak. She and her organizers were the ones who backed out.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 08:53 PM) Well, that's the way it works in most industries. In my industry, under HIPAA rules, disclosures of confidential data leads to massive fines. For example, a careless employee in a branch office in the middle of a southern small town cost my company over 75million in fines. One person at one TINY location caused this out of carelessness or whatever other reason. Can you elaborate on this incident? It must have been in the news, but I haven't found anything in quick google searches.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 18, 2010 -> 03:47 PM) I still think it's a little too convenient that Widmore spends the 2nd half of his life trying to get back to the island, and then suddenly he appears out of the blue in a sub. What about all that Eloise Hawking stuff when she said the island was hidden and there were specific points in time/space necessary to find it (her explanation to the 6 going back on the Ajira flight)? Yeah, that whole "moving the island" thing didn't turn out to be very effective.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 9, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) Well it seems Im the only dork who is looking forward to the first Final Fantasy release made for this generation of consoles. After the last two duds (12 and 10-2), I can wait

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Mar 1, 2010 -> 05:15 AM) But Requiem was a great film. It wasn't just about drugs, it was about addiction which led the characters to a dream world, which led them to desperation & then reality smacking them in the face. About Crash, the only people who I've heard say that they don't like it are the people who say things like "there's not way any of that still happens." (Not saying that you guys fall into that category. I'm just saying.) Crash was made to pat itself on the back.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 28, 2010 -> 03:48 PM) Am I the only person alive that enjoyed Crash? Racism exists, and it's BAD!

If the purpose of the DH is to eliminate terrible-hitting pitchers, why not just go to an 8-man batting lineup? How about teams can bring out any 9 players for "defense" and any 9 players on "offense" for the lineup? /semi-serious

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 06:13 PM) I have zero idea about skiing, so I ask this question completely seriously, why don't other women use them then? Does she have the skill to handle them why other women don't? Or do other women use them too? "I'm taller and maybe a little bit heavier than most of the other girls," Vonn said after winning the third super-combined of her career. "So for me, the men's skis are more stable. It's harder to turn, of course, it takes more strength. But I'm able to generate a lot of speed from the turns." http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-19/spor...-vonn-world-cup

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 10:56 PM) Really? So life is independent of the Big Bang? How does that make any sense? The Big Bang supposedly explains that whole process of how we go from elements to talking over the internet on a message board in the year 2010. No, the Big Bang involves the initial expansion of the universe. It doesn't cover the initial development of life or the evolution of life to more complex forms. For that, there are theories of abiogenesis and evolution. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 10:56 PM) Just like this specific scientific explanation is unsupported and unientific. It's a cop out to say that science answers all when it can't answer certain questions, like where did life begin. Can you tell me how the Big Bang Theory is unsupported or unscientific? Or evolution? And no one claimed science answers ALL, just that it is a great (arguably the best) method of finding answers. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 10:56 PM) How exactly? I'm saying I need more than "here's the answer to where did life come from, unfortunately we can't start with the most pressing question, so we'll just stick to what we think happened AFTER all that..." You implied scientists want you to believe things just because they say so. This is certainly untrue, as scientific ideas are presented with their evidences. Were the religious beliefs you hold presented similarly? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 10:56 PM) I'm not disputing this. But that doesn't mean science answers all, or that if science can't answer it, nothing can. No, but it certainly distinguishes the 2 forms of ideas. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 10:56 PM) I'm not disagreeing with this, in general. But when you're talking about teaching this stuff to kids in school it's important. No one thinks we should stop teaching biology and start teaching meditation or something. But we're talking about teaching controversial, political issues, like when/how did life begin. I completely agree that SCIENCE should be taught, but again, it's crazy to me that any sort of religious explanation is instantly thrown out the window as entirely impossible, yet SCIENCE also fails to have an answer. Religious explanations aren't thrown out of science classrooms for no reason; they're thrown out because they're *not scientific* or *wrong*.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 09:25 PM) What? Scientists don't claim that the big bang created life and that there's no other explanation? I think that's their whole argument! No. The Big Bang has nothing to do with the creation of life. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 09:25 PM) They think a greater power is laughable (clearly some of you agree), despite not being able to answer the first part of the question. That's like saying you understand the creation of a human without being able to answer where the egg and sperm came from and why they came together in the first place. It would be more accurate to say that a greater power is unsupported or, in the cases of some 'greater powers', unscientific. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 09:25 PM) No, that's why I'm a lawyer, because I think critically and need more evidence than "believe me when I tell you this." Are you serious? You're completely backwards. Scientific ideas are created and modified, or discarded based on evidences and are presented with those evidences. Religious ideas are not. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 09:25 PM) All I'm saying is that academia preaches just as much as religion. At the end of the day science can answer more questions than religion, no doubt, but not the important questions. Not the questions of why we are here, how we got here, etc. Those are unknowable. It makes me laugh how self-righteous the anti-religious people are, how they know they're right, and how they know that anyone who thinks differently is so obviously unintelligent. Science does not even attempt to tackle questions of "why". These are out of its scope, and not what we have been discussing. The questions of "how" can be addressed (not in every case, of course), and for them, the scientific method is a far superior method of discovering truths than revelation, which is arbitrary.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 10:03 PM) Because there had to have been a beginning. A beginning does not just "exist," it has to be created. There is no answer for how elements or energy exist without a "they were created by..." It is impossible to prove the creation of the universe. At best, we can theorize that, after that first step, steps 2 through X happened in Y way. The Big Bang is precisely steps 2 through X. What happened before the Big Bang is not just unknown, it is unknowable and scientists would admit as much. I wouldn't want you on a jury. All the evidence could completely point to one guy and you'd think it was equally reasonable a leprechaun was the murderer. Religious creation myths aren't theories; they're not even hypotheses.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 08:45 PM) Really? So taking a theory like the Big Bang is so vastly different than a theory about an old bearded guy in the sky? Don't both require a belief in something that's entirely unprovable (God, or the existence of elements that just happened to be hangin' around in space). Yes, they are vastly different. The Big Bang Theory was developed by through analysis of known principles and observations. It will be strengthened or weakened as we gain more knowledge. The same cannot be said of creation myths. How is it unprovable (or unreasonable) that matter/energy used to exist?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 08:24 PM) My point remains. Both contain unverifiable facts (the beginning, for example). One is preaching, the other is teaching. Your point remains wrong. Religious claims are not equivalent to scientific theories.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 08:15 PM) ah here's where we're confused. no, i do not believe it's a legitimate disorder. Then, we're not confused. My objection was to that idea.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 07:33 PM) Wow, really? So the whole Bible is made up? Interesting. I guess I see zero difference between a book of ancient history, say for example A History of the Peloponnesian War, and the Bible. Both are comprised entirely of first hand accounts. Yet one is "fact," and the other is not? Much of the authorship of the Bible is highly questionable, so I'm unsure how you can attribute all of it to first-hand accounts. First-hand knowledge wouldn't account for the obviously false (Creation, Noah, Exodus) events or the really poor history in other areas.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 07:38 PM) it's pretty difficult for theory's to be made into laws. Like I said, I find it disrespectful to walk into a class of someone who the subject is their life's study and work, and challenge them before listening to their presentation. And if you can't listen to alternative presentations without crying about bias then you probably aren't cut out for college. Theories are never turned into Laws. They serve two different purposes.